I DID... They concluded did have delivery systems that were banned... They concluded Saddam did hid some labs... They concluded Saddam could restart a chemical WMD program within weeks by using dual purpose manufacturing plants... All of which Saddam was obligated to either destroy, or not have... I read the post war conclusions BIG LETTERS and the develish small print in the conclusions... You might try that Mark...
>>> To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own >>> inadequacies.... Now this Mark is an example of uncivil insults by the moderator who post a warning to me for something far more civil.. On Feb 24, 3:48 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > GAWD jgg, You have no idea on how to read a report. The precursors which you > are quoting are part of the "evidence" that is to be admitted or not and if > admitted (after checking source and giving weight accordingly) at a later > stage in the report. > > To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own > inadequacies..... > > Go to the parts that are in big letters at the end of each general section > marked CONCLUSIONS. These are for the laymen. Then you will be more likely > to be less confused with the universally used and accepted bureaucratic > legalese. > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Gawd Mark, how wrong you are... It is in your own proof.... > > > pgs 32-34 (undeclared precursors), p55 (dual manufacturing capacity > > which was banned) Conclusion 8 (missiles) > > > The main problem you have here is refused to admit that by the UNSC > > definitions of WMD (stockpiles, precursers, manufacturing capacity, > > research, delivery systems, components thereof) Saddam had WMD... > > Now you might argue that the degree he had them was insufficient for > > invasion, but he in fact had them... Secondly you ignore the reliance > > by the leaders in both parties on faulty intel by all the major intel > > agency in both the Clinton and Bush years (and before).. Thirdly your > > ignore that Saddam refusal to provide full and unfettered access so > > outside third party could not verify the facts which was required due > > to Saddam prior programs, use and lies concerning them prior to > > 1996... > > > The Kay Report stated that Saddam was waiting for Sanctions to end to > > redo his WMD programs... > > > Your requirement of ONLY letting me use previously approved "proof" is > > another standard tactic to limit an honest and and civil debate > > Mark... > > > On Feb 24, 10:30 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Since public domain empiracal data ( > >http://politicalforum.googlegroups.com/web/iraq.pdf?hl=en&gda=H27U8Do...) > > > says and proves me correct your point is forfiet. > > > > I have seen NOTHING from you that bears up to any standard of proof. > > > > I will wait while you argue your Republican position with the > > > Republican committee that authored the report mentioned above.... I > > > will accept as proof of your position ANY and ALL info they did not > > > have when forming the report as pertinent. Lacking that ........... > > > your position goes by the way of all other emotional and second hand > > > informed opinions.... > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To quote a poster on this board > > > > > "and not a single point countered... not a single question answered" > > > > > You claimed "Saddam had no WMD" , "Saddam was no threat", and the > > > > "Saddam had no involvement with AQ"... All three conclusions are > > > > wrong... I made my counter arguments, you changed the topic... > > > > > Civil debate requires a number of things > > > > > 1) sufficiently respectful between debaters > > > > > 2) the debaters respond the points made by others with relevant facts > > > > and logic > > > > > 3) a willingness to accept there may be errors in your logic and facts > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:50 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> If you want to gety that involved then we need to talk "blue jeans" > > > >> and "music" and travel rights. > > > > >> Just how deep is your knowledge ?? > > > > >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > 1) Using the definition used by the UNSC, Saddam did have WMD, > > > >> > period... Do you know what they were? > > > > >> > 2) Saddam's Iraq, as described by the Kay Report was in fact a > > failing > > > >> > state... That combined with the Saddam induced corruption in the > > UN, > > > >> > Saddam's refusal to follow UN Resolution (and the UNSC alowing it to > > > >> > happen), the rise of stateless terrorism to deliver WMD, and the > > > >> > willingness ofr the failing state of Iraq to introduce WMD in the > > > >> > hands of stateless terrorists DID pose a threat to the US and the > > > >> > entire world order... That you refuse to even address this point > > is > > > >> > telling -- you insist on seeing Saddam in a traditional state to > > state > > > >> > conflict, when this was NOT about that... > > > > >> > 3) Bush went into Iraq to address the sytematic causes of groups > > like > > > >> > AQ -- bad governance in the ME and their export of terrorism to > > > >> > maintain internal order... > > > > >> > 4) What you are not addressing is that the WOT is not just about OBL > > > >> > or AQ, but the entire structure that allows for those types of > > groups > > > >> > to exist... > > > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:14 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > No matter how many times these arguments are proven wrong > > > >> > > you will never listen to the truth of the facts. > > > > >> > > Saddam was not a threat, had no WMD.s, was not harboring > > > >> > > Al qaeda, and was not involved in the 9/11 attack. > > > > >> > > Bin Laden who Bush promised to get dead or alive on the burning > > > >> > > ashes of american dead at ground zero, was the Terror Threat, > > > >> > > is trying to get WMD's, is harboring Al qaeda cells and > > > >> > > spreading terror, was involved in the 9/11 attack, and is STILL > > > >> > > FREE TO CONTINUE ALL OF THE ABOVE! > > > > >> > > So how did we win? > > > > >> > > On Feb 23, 4:40 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > 1) an AQ linked group was granted a limited haven in Iraq under > > Saddam > > > >> > > > (NE Iraq) in part due to Saddam's lack of influence there.. > > > > >> > > > 2) AQ went to Iraq in force to "defeat" America.... By going to > > Iraq, > > > >> > > > Bush force AQ to "defend" Iraq, and AQ tried to do that by > > seeking but > > > >> > > > failing to chase the Americans out... Instead of victory, AQ > > saw a > > > >> > > > strategic defeat because Sunni Moslems turned against AQ and > > supported > > > >> > > > America because of AQ thuggish death cult was exposed by AQ's > > actions > > > >> > > > to ordinary Sunni Iraqis... > > > > >> > > > 3) You just do not "get it", in war you seek to engage your > > enemy in a > > > >> > > > place and time of your choosing. Bush choose Iraq and AQ rush > > in > > > >> > > > onto this battlefield and was defeated... > > > > >> > > > 4) Your next point will be we should not have invaded Iraq > > because > > > >> > > > they did not attack us... But here you ignore who the enemy in > > the > > > >> > > > WOT is and was - the nexus between radical Islam (Sunni and > > Shia), > > > >> > > > failed and failing states (as Iraq was), and WMD (stockpiles, > > > >> > > > manufacturing, and knowledge)... Stateless terrorist ARE the > > ideal > > > >> > > > delivery system for any failing state wishing to deny "offical" > > > >> > > > responsibility in a chemical, biological, or dirty nuke > > attack... > > > >> > > > Until you comprehend this, your POV of what Bush did lacks > > fundamental > > > >> > > > understanding... > > > > >> > > > On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > There was no AQ in Iraq prior to the US arrival. Your point > > has no > > > >> > > > > value. The Bush family has more proveable links to AQ and its > > finances > > > >> > > > > than Hussein ever did. > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM, jgg1000a < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > Except VT we did win in Iraq... AQ and Iran have suffered > > strategic > > > >> > > > > > defeats... The refusal to grasp that concept is why your > > opinion in > > > >> > > > > > this matter is not factual... > > > > >> > > > > > On Feb 22, 5:37 am, VT VirtualTruth < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> Just like Iraq this is another no win situation left > > > >> > > > > >> for another person to clean up. Bush should have dealt with > > this mess > > > >> > > > > >> but he could not, or would not admit HIS OWN MISTAKE! > > > > >> > > > > >> Bush had no business being President and it will become > > clearer > > > >> > > > > >> with each month that goes by! > > > > >> > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2:16 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > if he did he would enrage his Leftie base... If he > > doesn't, another > > > >> > > > > >> > example of Obama the-just-another-politician come to > > light... How > > > >> > > > > >> > many will it take for the media to see Obama is just > > another Emperor > > > >> > > > > >> > without clothing??? > > >http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/guantanamo-bay-military-prison-m... > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> According to a Pentagon review ordered by President > > Obama. So... great. I'm proud of our military. But am I proud of our > > President who first promised to close the place and then got the study > > showing the facts relevant to the question whether it should be closed? > > > > >> > > > > >> > Let's see if he can say now, as he has before, I screwed > > up. > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > >> -- > > > >> Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > -- > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
